Posted on 12/30/2014 5:56:33 AM PST by C19fan
Men who take part in violent conflicts are more likely to father more children, researchers have found. Researchers at Harvard University studied a small tribal populations in eastern Africa - and found violent conflict does result in more wives and children for certain warriors. They studied the Nyangatom, a group of nomadic herders living in a region of southwest Ethiopia and South Sudan.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Somebody actually got paid to study this.
Note: women don’t like wusses. They want protectors.
They really paid them to do a study on this? I guess they’re trying to figure out what attracts women to men and men to women. Probably along the lines of LGBT studies to figure out how to stop this so they can just make everyone be gay and depopulate the earth NWO style.../s
women just love a man in uniform
:)
"Walt? Is that you?"
Probably with a government grant.... Your tax dollars at work.
Hmmm. If my choices for a baby daddy were a BDU, combat boot wearing, weapon toting, alpha male type or a foppish, effete, skinny jean, bedazzled graphic tshirt wearing metrosexual; I’m going with the manly man every time.
Women Love Manly Men and Men love Feminine Women.
The question to be answered is whether men who take part in violent conflicts are more likely to father more children than men who research whether men who take part in violent conflicts are more likely to father more children.
Well that’s a pretty sexist thing to say. I thought we had moved beyond hetronormative gender roles by now in the Age of Obama but you knuckle dragging types just insist on clinging to the destructive tendencies of the past.
Who is to say that men have to be ‘manly’? What exactly is ‘unmanly’ about a man in a nice tight skirt, heels and a Murse? What? Go ahead. Tell me with a straight face that it would somehow negatively impact battle readiness for fighting men to express their feelings with a good cry.
You sir, disgust me...
No.
They like wusses that have conditions themselves to be white knights, thinking they are being “protectors”.
Guys need to stop trying to measure their manhood by how much crap they do for women.
The problem with the White Knight thing is that men have been intentionally conditioned by libs all their lives with the idea that doing the crap they do now is on par with Chivalry.
It’s the 1984 thing. In the book, the goal was the elimination of words so as no Idea could be formed or expressed. In White knight terms, men have their traditional roles etc. shoved into ever smaller boxes. They literally lack the ability to think beyond their actions because all reference beyond the immediate/today/modern idea of manhood has been PC or actually criminalized.
This study is nonsense.
I play Call of Duty all the time and I never had any kids.
lol!
Just say the Opposite about Women, who buck femininity , what is wrong with a Woman wearing Boots, A Pants Suit and a Neck Tat?
Well, that Argument is invalid
I’ll just give you a grin for that post.
True.
I measure my manhood with a ruler.
That should be men who survive violent conflicts. Those of the first group, and not of the second, are not fathering more children.
LMAO.
Personally I think we would go far as a nation and as a people if we would ban nationalistic themes like “Wild Blue Yonder” and the other milataristic rah-rah drivel in our armed forces and replace it with more appropriate verse reflecting the modern battlefield needs. It would bring together our transgendered warriors in a celebration of inclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L7BQRGXFLJs#t=50
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.